The C-14 inference may be deduced as follows. We know that C-14 dating of the bones was commissioned in January, because the Greek Ministry of Culture told us so at the time. Such measurements take no more than months, so I hope we may agree that the results very probably now exist. Hopefully, we may also agree that Katerina Peristeri as head of the archaeological team is very likely to have been told the results. Now she has publicly announced that the tomb was in use only up to the Roman Conquest in 168BC and she has added that the tomb was sealed in the second century BC. Peristeri cannot therefore believe that the C-14 dates are later than the Roman conquest. QED the C-14 results have come out as pre-168BC.agesilaos wrote:Since there is no mention of any C14 dating in the articles or letter cited I presume that
Is your speculation entirely, and would suggest its only significance is its total insignificance; speculation based on artefacts or sources is fair enough but on pseudo-Holmesian deduction, mmmh? Good to see you are preparing your defence of a later C14 date, where is the research demonstrating this step change?I would also like to point out that the carbon dates on the bones should be available to the official team by now. I have previously explained that the beginning of the second century BC is the boundary between the two possible ranges of carbon date. Katerina Peristeri's dating of the sealing is therefore a strong hint that the carbon dates have pointed to the earlier carbon epoch (roughly 350-180BC). This is VERY significant.
So are you challenging the assumptions here: that the C-14 results exist and that the head of the excavation knows them? That is all that is necessary to conclude that the C-14 results are in the early Hellenistic range. If Peristeri does not know that her new revised sealing date is consistent with the C-14 dates, then she is being very daring in announcing it.
The chart below shows the range of C-14 dates (vertical axis) that you will get from organic material that died at the date given on the horizontal axis. The blue lines are 96% confidence upper and lower bounds (the red lines are for 68% confidence). Hence for material that died in 315BC you can see that C-14 dates between 380BC and 175BC will be measured 96% of the time. Similar C-14 date ranges are measured right the way up to material that died in 210BC (where the C-14 range is also 380BC to 175BC at 96% confidence). However, for material that died in 168BC C-14 dates will be measured that range right the way up to ~50BC and there is scarcely any overlap with the 315BC range at 68% confidence more recently than dates just a few years after the Roman conquest. Peristeri must have C-14 date ranges from the Amphipolis tomb bones that correspond with death dates before ~200BC in order to be confident in announcing that the bones were deposited before the Roman conquest. As you can see, there is a fairly sudden transition in the C-14 date ranges just around the Roman conquest. If you were basing an archaeological theory on C-14 dates, you would tend to use dates that correspond to sudden transitions in the C-14 date ranges. The fact that Peristeri is doing so in this case hints that she not only knows the C-14 dates, but is basing her revised sealing date upon them. It must be some kind of new information received since her team suggested that the sealing happened in the Roman imperial period last November and it must be compelling to have overthrown that view.
Best wishes,
Andrew